Introduction:

In the case of Pranav Pandey v. Union Public Service Commission, the Delhi High Court, through a division bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, firmly rejected a plea challenging the formulation and difficulty of questions in Paper I (General Studies) and Paper II (CSAT) of the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023. The petitioner, Pranav Pandey, had approached the Court after the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his plea alleging ambiguity and unfairness in certain questions of the preliminary examination. The case gained attention due to its potential impact on over six lakh aspirants who appeared for the CSE 2023, with the petitioner arguing that several questions were either out of syllabus, not designed to test the aptitude effectively, or borrowed directly from advanced-level textbooks irrelevant to the prescribed syllabus. The case thus raised critical questions regarding the permissible scope of judicial review over the conduct of one of India’s most prestigious examinations and the extent to which courts can scrutinize the discretion exercised by expert paper setters entrusted with maintaining the rigor of the selection process for future civil servants.

Arguments of the Petitioner and Respondents:

Counsel for petitioner Pranav Pandey submitted that certain questions in Paper I were flawed because they did not effectively distinguish between candidates with knowledge and those without it, as a candidate guessing the number of correct options could score the same as a candidate who genuinely knew the answers. He contended that the design of such questions rendered the test arbitrary and unfair, diluting its purpose of assessing a candidate’s aptitude and general awareness. Pandey further argued that the structure of these questions made it possible for students who merely guessed the number of correct options—without actually identifying the correct ones—to score marks indistinguishably from students who answered through proper understanding, thereby defeating the examination’s objective to select the most meritorious candidates. Regarding Paper II, Pandey argued that several questions were derived from textbooks used for specialized exams like the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) or advanced study materials for higher classes, placing them beyond the scope of the prescribed syllabus for the Civil Services Aptitude Test. He contended that the inclusion of such questions unfairly disadvantaged aspirants who had not prepared beyond the expected syllabus and forced them to attempt questions designed for a different level of education, violating principles of fairness and equal opportunity enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Pandey asserted that the questions did not align with the standard of a preliminary aptitude test for civil services and that such paper setting practices risked turning the examination into a game of chance rather than a merit-based assessment.

Conversely, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) argued that the formulation of questions was the exclusive domain of expert committees comprising experienced academicians, subject matter specialists, and senior officials, who crafted questions with an understanding of the diversity of educational backgrounds among lakhs of aspirants. The UPSC contended that a paper designed for over six lakh candidates necessarily involved varying levels of difficulty to ensure the most capable candidates could be identified through a rigorous selection process. The Commission emphasized that the purpose of the preliminary examination was not to guarantee comfort but to challenge aspirants and filter them through a fair, broad-based assessment of aptitude, comprehension, and knowledge. The UPSC also highlighted that questions from higher-level textbooks or similar to those found in exams like JEE did not automatically render them out of syllabus, as long as they tested fundamental concepts aligned with the syllabus prescribed in the CSE notification. Counsel argued that the mere presence of difficult questions or resemblance to questions in other competitive examinations could not be grounds for judicial interference, as setting a uniformly “easy” paper would undermine the examination’s credibility and defeat its intended purpose. The UPSC further submitted that whenever grievances were raised by candidates regarding specific questions, the Commission referred such complaints to an expert committee, which had, in Pandey’s case, examined the impugned questions and found them to be appropriate, correct, and well within the syllabus, justifying their inclusion.

Court’s Judgment:

In a detailed judgment, the division bench rejected Pandey’s plea, upholding the CAT’s dismissal of his challenge. The Court underscored the limited role of the judiciary in reviewing question papers prepared by expert authorities, holding that courts must exercise extreme caution and intervene only in rare circumstances where questions are palpably erroneous or where multiple correct answers exist without proper acknowledgment, leading to manifest injustice. The bench observed that lakhs of students appear for the CSE every year, and it could not be presumed that all candidates would have identical academic preparation or exposure. The Court reasoned that the level of difficulty in such large-scale competitive exams could legitimately vary to distinguish among a massive pool of aspirants, which was not only permissible but necessary for maintaining the examination’s sanctity and credibility. The bench noted that accepting Pandey’s contention that questions requiring candidates to identify the number of correct options were inherently unfair would imply that examiners could never set multiple-choice questions with nuanced answer structures—a position the Court found both impractical and contrary to the settled practices of competitive examinations worldwide. The judges emphasized that the “mere fact” that candidates could guess the number of correct options and earn marks was insufficient to render a question invalid or unconstitutional, as speculative answering was a risk inherent in any objective type examination. On the argument that certain questions in Paper II were out of syllabus because they could also be found in JEE or higher-level textbooks, the Court unequivocally rejected this claim, ruling that questions broadly falling within the syllabus could not be deemed out of syllabus merely due to their difficulty or appearance in unrelated examinations. The bench clarified that the standard for declaring a question out of syllabus must meet an exceptionally high threshold, requiring the question to be glaringly unrelated to the prescribed syllabus, a standard not met in the present case. The judges stated: “The mere fact that some questions may also figure in textbooks for higher classes or be asked in other competitive examinations does not definitely indicate that the questions are out of syllabus.” They further elaborated that students aspiring for the highest offices in the nation’s civil services must be prepared for challenging papers, and judicial micromanagement of question setting would disrupt the integrity and efficacy of competitive exams. Citing precedents on judicial restraint in academic matters, the Court highlighted that courts must refrain from substituting their own opinion for that of academic experts unless there is a clear demonstration of arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions, none of which were present in Pandey’s case. Ultimately, the Court held that questions in Paper I and Paper II of the CSE 2023 were framed within the legitimate domain of paper setters, involved no palpable errors, and did not breach the constitutional guarantees of fairness or equality. Consequently, it dismissed the petition with no order as to costs.